This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and four nonprecedential orders. In the first precedential opinion, the court affirmed a case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Notably, Judge Newman dissented. In the second precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In two of the nonprecedential orders, the Federal Circuit denied petitions for writs of mandamus seeking to transfer cases from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. One of the other nonprecedential orders, however, granted in part a petition for a writ of mandamus and, in particular, directed the Western District of Texas to decide a transfer motion. The last nonprecedential order dismissed an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and a link to the dismissal.
May v. McDonough (Precedential)
Frank May, III, appeals the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) never issued a decision from which Mr. May could appeal, we affirm.
NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
The question before us is whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the “Veterans Court”) has jurisdiction to consider this appeal from the decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) regional office. Appellant Frank May, III, filed a timely appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the “Board”), and after two years of inaction he filed an appeal to the Veterans Court. That court held it does not have jurisdiction “[b]ecause the Board did not issue a final decision,”and dismissed the appeal. However, 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(2) authorizes the Veterans Court to “compel action of the Secretary unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” Such authority is jurisdictional, for “a tribunal’s ‘power to hear a case’ [is] a matter that ‘can never be forfeited or waived.’” From my colleagues’ ruling that the Veterans Court lacks jurisdiction of this appeal, I respectfully dissent.
The Regents of the University of Minnesota (“Minnesota”) appeal from a final written decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) holding that claims 1−9, 11−21, and 23−28 of U.S. Patent 8,815,830 are unpatentable as anticipated by the asserted prior art. For the following reasons, we affirm.
In re Western Digital Technologies, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. (“Western Digital”) petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to vacate its decision denying transfer and to transfer this patent infringement case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Viasat, Inc. opposes. We deny the petition.
In re Google LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
Flypsi, Inc. (“Flyp”) brought this patent infringement suit against Google LLC in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division. The district court denied Google’s motion to transfer the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Google now petitions this court for a writ of mandamus that would vacate that order and direct transfer. . . . We cannot say “that the facts and circumstances are without any basis for” that conclusion. . . .
In re Apple Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Apple Inc. petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to promptly rule on Apple’s motion to transfer and to stay other proceedings until transfer has been resolved. Apple also moves this court to stay the proceedings pending consideration of its petition. . . . Given the demanding standard on mandamus, we cannot say that it was a clear abuse of discretion under the specific circumstances of this case for the district court to conclude that Apple was not entitled to a stay of the Markman hearing or the discovery deadlines because of its delay in moving for a stay. However, for the reasons provided above, we grant Apple’s petition for mandamus to the extent that the district court is directed to timely decide the transfer motion before proceeding to further substantive matters beyond the Markman hearing.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The interim stay of the Markman hearing is lifted. (2) The petition and motion are granted to the limited extent that the district court is directed to decide the transfer motion before proceeding to further substantive matters beyond the Markman hearing.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.